Agenda, decisions and minutes

NONE

No apologies for absence were received, all members were present.

NONE

There were no declarations of interest reported.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2012 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

(Applications meriting special consideration)

PERMISSION

Description of application - Single storey detached modular building and access ramp for use as temporary classroom.

The Chief Planner’s report attached to the agenda was incorrect and a replacement supplementary report had been reissued on 1 May 2012.  On page 2 of the replacement report it was noted that under the heading, Planning Considerations, at the end of paragraph 3 the words, “the proposed structure will”, should be deleted.  It was noted that no objections to the application had been received.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the condition set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED, ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO BE CONTINUED

Description of application - Roof alterations to enclose balcony area, dormer extension to existing garage and elevational alterations.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Peter Dean, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner.  IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION be continued in order to return the structure to the scale and design of the original approved planning application DC/05/03804 as amended. (GLORIA PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS IS CORRECT.)

PERMISSION

Description of application – Enlargement of roof including front and rear dormers to provide first floor accommodation.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

DEFERRED

Description of application - Rooflights to front and rear roofslopes, part conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and elevational alterations.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates were received at the meeting.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to seek a reduction in the size and/or the number of front and side windows.

DEFERRED

Description of application - Part one/two storey front, side and rear extensions.

  Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to seek an increase in the side space.

(Councillor Charles Joel wished his vote for permission to be recorded.)

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

PERMISSION, TEMPORARY CONDITION FOR THREE YEARS

Description of application – Use of building, storage container and adjacent land for horticultural and arboricultural training.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that a letter of support from Capel Manor College had been received.  It was also reported that Heritage Urban Design had no objection to the application.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:-

“4.  The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land reinstated to its former condition on or before 31^ST May 2015.

REASON:  In order that the situation can be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances at that time in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies BE1, BE11 and G2 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

(Councillor Tom Papworth wished his vote for refusal to be recorded.)

REFUSED, ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

Description of application amended to read  - “Retention of detached single storey storage and workshop building RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION”.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Nicky Dykes in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that Ward Member, Councillor Will Harmer, objected to the application.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The building, due to its scale, siting and size has an unacceptable detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area and the open nature of the site, contrary to Policies BE1 and G8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The building is detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby residential properties by reason of visual impact and the noise and disturbance associated with the use of the building, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to secure the removal of the building.

PERMISSION, TEMPORARY CONDITION FOR THREE YEARS

Description of application - Use of land for demonstration garden.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that a letter of support from Capel Manor College had been received.  It was also reported that Heritage Urban Design had no objection to the application.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:-

“5.  The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land reinstated to its former condition on or before 31^ST May 2015.

REASON:  In order that the situation can be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances at that time in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies BE1, BE11 and G2 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

PERMISSION

Description of application - Detached polytunnel.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that a letter of support from Capel Manor College had been received.  It was also reported that Heritage Urban Design had no objection to the application.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner

with a further condition to read:-

“5.  Details of a scheme of landscaping in order to screen the development hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development.  Any trees of plants which within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted. 

REASON:  In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to secure a visually attractive setting for the development.”

(Councillor Tom Papworth wished his vote for refusal to be recorded.)

DEFERRED FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND IF APPROPRIATE, TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE CHIEF PLANNERS’ DELEGATED POWERS

Description of application – Fell one sycamore SUBJECT TO TPO 34.

Members were concerned that consent had been given in 2011 for the crown to be reduced by 30% and at that time, no disease had appeared to be present.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that the matter BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration for further clarification and, if appropriate, for the matter to be considered under the Chief Planner’s delegated powers.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 two storey detached four bedroom dwelling with accommodation in the roof space integral double garage and associated vehicular access and car parking.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. 

On page 83 of the Chief Planner’s report under the heading, ‘Proposal’, paragraph 2 should be amended to read, ““The proposed dwellings would both have a maximum height of around 8.2 metres and would both have accommodation within the roof space with Plot 1 consisting of rooflights to the front, side and rear elevations. Plot 1 would be of a different design to Plot 2 consisting of a single integral garage with brick and tile elevations. Plot 2 would have a half timbered and rendered elevation treatment and an integral double garage. The flank wall of Plot 1 would be located around 1.2 metres from the boundary with number 23a at its closest point. Plot 2 would be located at least 1.1 metres from the boundary”.

Also, at the bottom of page 83 of the Chief Planner’s report under the heading, ‘Location’, the paragraph should be amended to read, “The site has an area of some 0.12ha, and consists of a detached bungalow which was erected in the nineteen fifties and later extended in 1978. The bungalow is situated on the southern side of Hayes Lane and the garden plot is about 20m wide across the frontage. The site widens out to about 32m at the rear.”   

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Part one/two storey side and rear extension and side dormer extension to form habitable room in roof with roof lights to side and rear.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 27 April 2012.

On page 93 of the Chief Planner’s report the penultimate paragraph was amended to read, “Members should note that the local concerns raised with regards to the proposed side dormer were also raised in relation to the previously refused scheme.  However, although such dormers are not a common feature of the area, such development is not considered to impact upon the character of the area or the streetscene due to its scale and position within the roofslope.”

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Single storey front, side and rear extension and elevational alterations.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that further objections to the application had been received.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

DEFERRED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE AGENDA AT PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE 3 ON 7 JUNE 2012

Description of application – Part one/two storey side and rear extension with steps to front.

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates  in support of the application received at the meeting.  It was reported that a letter of support from Downe Residents’ Association had been received. 

On page 104 of the Chief Planner’s report the section under the heading, ‘Planning History’ was amended to read:-

“Planning History

Application reference 03/03521 granted permission for a single storey rear extension in the form of a conservatory and roof alterations to form a pitched roof. This has been implemented.

Within the area, 4 West Hill was granted permission for a front porch under application reference 04/01418 which has been implemented. A large number of alterations have been permitted at this property in the past, namely a single storey side extension in 1967 (reference 67/02648), a first floor side extension in 1972 (reference 72/02402) and a two storey rear extension in 1975 (reference 75/02142).

No.2 has previously been granted permission for a single storey rear extension, reference 03/00010 and a two storey side extension, reference 96/02572. Both have been implemented.”

Also, on page 105 of the Chief Planner’s report paragraph 4, the third sentence was amended to read, “The two storey extension at No. 2 was granted 16 years ago in 1966 and its existence and any very special circumstances that may have been presented at that time do not in themselves warrant very special circumstances in this instance.”

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED thatthe APPLICATION be DEFERRED without prejudice to any future decision for consideration on Section 2 of the agenda of Plans Sub-Committee 3 to be held on 7 June 2012.

As this was the final meeting of the municipal year, the Chairman thanked both Members and Officers for their work throughout the year and Councillor John Ince, on behalf of Members and Officers, likewise thanked her for all her support.

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.